Marinethttp://www.marinet.org.uk
- Marine Conservation For The UKMon, 25 Sep 2017 07:18:03 +0000en-GBhourly1Uncertainty still hangs over Welsh tidal lagoon projectshttp://www.marinet.org.uk/uncertainty-still-hangs-over-welsh-tidal-lagoon-projects.html
Mon, 25 Sep 2017 07:18:03 +0000http://www.marinet.org.uk/?p=10180Daily Telegraph Business reports, 9th September 2017: An £8bn plan to build Britain’s first full-scale tidal lagoon power project in Cardiff is moving ahead even as government approval for the controversial technology hangs in the balance.

For over two years the developers of the Swansea Bay Tidal Lagoon have waited for a decision on whether to support the relatively untested technology. This week, in a show of confidence, the group will confirm a milestone agreement with National Grid to connect the full-sized follow up programme planned for Cardiff.

Developers of the Swansea Bay Tidal Lagoon want the Government to sign up for 90 yearsCredit: Tidal Lagoon Power

The grid deal is partly designed to pile pressure on the Government to shake it from its paralysis over whether to support tidal power, which faces controversy over steep upfront costs.

Mark Sharrock, the chief executive of Tidal Lagoon Power, is hoping for a government contract that secures the £1.3bn Swansea project a revenue stream of £89.90 per mega-watt hour of electricity delivered to the grid for its entire 90-year lifespan. In return, he has promised that costs for the Cardiff follow-up project will fall to lows of ­between £60-£70/MWh as it benefits from lower supply-chain costs.

Swansea Tidal LagoonCredit: Wales News Service

“We’re all pretty confident that the Government is in its final throes and the approval will move ahead,” the green industrialist said.

The project has been subject to protracted debate and multiple delays, which threaten to dry up the private funds put in by a raft of private investors by the end of the year. In early 2016 the Government demanded a full root- and-branch review to determine whether to offer subsidies to the project or not.
It has continued its indecision for more than nine months since the review, conducted by former energy minister Charles Hendry, gave an unequivocal endorsement of the plans. Phil Sheppard, National Grid’s system operations boss, said his team has worked with the lagoon developers to understand the technology’s characteristics and found that it is ­reliable, predictable and highly flexible.

“This infrastructure project will have a significant impact as we move towards an increasingly low carbon electricity network,” he added. But ministers are understood to be concerned over the impact it may have on consumer bills and the unprecedented 90-year contract.

“In a 10-year economic model the Swansea Tidal project may look very expensive. But over its lifespan it will be a total consumer cost of £500m. The Cardiff project – which will be double the size — will cost half as much,” Mr Sharrock said. Once built the Cardiff Tidal Lagoon would be Britain’s largest renewable energy project, with the same generating capacity as Hinkley Point C but far lower costs than its £92.50MWh deal.

The renewable energy technology is likely to be the major winner in the Government’s renewable support auction, which will award £295m to low-carbon power schemes.

Mega-turbine developers including Scottish Power and Dong Energy are expected to have entered aggressively low bids amid plummeting offshore wind costs, which have fallen by half in less than five years. The record low subsidies could herald an £11bn industrial boon for post-Brexit Britain, while lightening the load on energy consumers who support the payments via their bills.

Experts believe contracts paying ­between £60 to £70 per megawatt hour of electricity are possible, which is well below the £140/MWh contracts handed to earlier projects and significantly cheaper than nuclear power, which costs around £90/MWh.

Richard Howard, from Aurora ­Energy Research, said the devaluation of sterling since last year’s Brexit vote will put some upward pressure on consumer costs, since more than 50pc of the amount spent on a typical wind farm is imported.

But in the longer term, the rebalancing of the currency will boost the competitiveness of UK offshore wind suppliers, he said.

Richard Turner, chief executive of subsea cable developer JDR Cables, said: “For years we were often told that we were too expensive due to the strength of the pound.”

The Cambridge-based manufacturer, which supplies Dong Energy’s offshore wind farms, has come under some cost pressure because it imports component parts from Europe.

However, JDR is already developing plans to increase its use of British supply partners as economics swing to their favour, in a further boost to UK plc.

“Our strategy is not based solely on foreign exchange — there are lots of benefits from having your supply chain closer to hand,” he added.

JDR was recently snapped up by ­European cabling giant TFKable for an undisclosed sum. It will continue to manufacture its cables in Hartlepool.

]]>Petition of ¼ million signatures for Plastic returnable bottle deposit scheme hits Downing Streethttp://www.marinet.org.uk/petition-of-%c2%bc-million-signatures-for-plastic-returnable-bottle-deposit-scheme-hits-downing-street.html
Sat, 16 Sep 2017 06:01:19 +0000http://www.marinet.org.uk/?p=10172Surfers Against Sewage report, 14th September 2017: “This week we were thrilled to lead a delegation of cross-party MPs and charities to submit our Message In A Bottle petition, the UK’s largest petition — 267,554 signatures — calling for a deposit return system with more than quarter of a million signatures, to the Prime Minister. We were joined for the petition submission by our All Party Parliamentary Group chair Steve Double MP, vice-chair Geraint Davies MP and co-leader of the Green party Caroline Lucas MP, alongside our campaign partners 38 Degrees.

Over quarter of a million signatures presented to 10 Downing Street to call for action on ocean plastic pollution with a UK-wide deposit return system

Scotland commits to Deposit Return System: Rest of the UK not far behind

Meeting in 10 Downing Street suggests imminent announcement on DRS

New poll shows 73% of public support the introduction of a deposit return system

Huge Public Support
Supporting the event, the Marine Conservation Society also released a new poll showing 73% of the British public support the introduction of a deposit return system across the UK for single-use drinks bottles and cans. The petition and poll clearly demonstrate the UK public overwhelmingly supports introducing a deposit return system to stem the tide of ocean plastic pollution.

Downing Street Meeting
Following the submission of the petition, we convened a meeting in 10 Downing Street to discuss the growing economic and environmental evidence to introduce a comprehensive deposit return system on bottles and cans, and the massive public support to do so. We were very encouraged by the discussion, which reflected on the important leverage the scale of the Message in a Bottle petition, will have in relation to imminent government policy decisions on the issue of plastic bottles polluting our environment. We’d like to thank everyone who signed, shared and supported the petition. We were honoured to take your voice to Downing Street to help create the change we want to see to protect our oceans and beaches from the growing tide of plastic pollution.

Plastic Pollution
The harmful impacts from plastic pollution can continue to damage the oceans for hundreds of years. A third of fish currently caught in the UK have plastics in their guts and the average UK seafood eater consumes 11,000 plastic particles annually. Strong and effective action to protect our oceans from plastic pollution is urgently needed and the introduction of a deposit return system would prevent an estimated 4 million plastic bottles from entering the oceans every week in the UK.

Political Support
There is growing cross-party support within our Protect Our Waves All Party Parliamentary Group, with many members championing deposit returns and challenging the government to adopt this system as soon as possible. Secretary of State for the Environment, the Rt Hon Michael Gove MP, recently described deposit return systems as “a great idea”, saying he’d like to see one introduced “as soon as possible”

The delivery of the petition comes on the back of the recent announcement that Scotland is now committed to introducing a deposit return scheme. The First Minister for Scotland, Nicola Sturgeon, confirmed the commitment while unveiling her new programme for government, which sets out how the country will be run for the next 12 months.

Watch this space for the next announcements on deposit return systems and plastic free coastlines.

Marinet Note: Before reading this story, we recommend you view first this 3 minute video made in connection with the story — click the Facebook link here.

New footage released to DeSmog Canada shows deformed and disfigured salmon at two salmon farms on the B.C. coast — just as British Columbia reels from news of the escape of up to 305,000 Atlantic farmed salmon from a Washington salmon pen.

Wild salmon advocate and fisheries biologist Alexandra Morton said she was shocked by the footage. “I was shocked and frankly disgusted,” Morton told DeSmog Canada. “These fish have open sores, sea lice, blisters all over their skin and a disturbing number of them are going blind.”

Morton said the footage also gives an indication of what is now travelling through Pacific waters after the escape of potentially hundreds of thousands of farmed Atlantic salmon in the San Juan Islands just east of Victoria. Atlantic salmon are considered invasive in Pacific waters. “Now you have potentially 300,000 farmed salmon travelling with wild salmon. We know that is what they do.”

The footage was shot at two salmon farms owned by Grieg Seafood and located near Broughton Island, B.C., in the traditional territory of the Musgmagw Dzawada’enuwx Nation.

The nation has been vocally opposed to fish farming in its traditional waters for 30 years and has handed out eviction notices to fish farming corporations.

“These fish are really sick,” Ernest Alfred, member of the Nagmis and Lawit’sis from Alert Bay, says in the footage. “These fish are polluting the environment that we call home.”

Greig Seafood did not respond to requests for comment.

Alfred and Awahawoo Hereditary Chief George Quocksister Jr. shot the footage while travelling to fish farms aboard the research vessel Martin Sheen, provided by the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society.

“When I say there is disease in these farmed salmon, this is not a guess,” Morton said. “Over 80 per cent of farmed salmon are infected with piscine reovirus.” [Piscine reovirus : See Footnote].

Morton is currently fighting the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and Fisheries Minister Dominique Leblanc in court to prevent more Atlantic salmon infected with the virus from being placed in B.C. waters.

Morton said the fish pens are a highly concentrated source of waste and disease that threaten other species. “From a biological point of view this footage gives you an idea of the scale of the pathogensA virus or bacterium capable of causing disease. coming out of these farms and we know that a single particle in this ocean can travel 10 kilometres in a short amount of time.”

Alfred said the window to protect wild salmon stocks in B.C. is closing. “You know, when I think about our people’s history, I think about the colonization, the stripping of our rights, the stripping of our identity, the fact that our language is disappearing, the potlatch ban, the fish is all we have left and they can’t take our fish.”

Footnote: The identity of a mysterious disease that’s raged through European salmon farms, wasting the hearts and muscles of infected fish, has been revealed. Researchers have eventually arrived at the 10-geneA string of the DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid) molecule that is the fundamental unit of inheritance, so it is variations in the make up of this molecule in the gene that controls variations in an organism's appearance and behaviour. GenesA string of the DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid) molecule that is the fundamental unit of inheritance, so it is variations in the make up of this molecule in the gene that controls variations in an organism's appearance and behaviour. Genes are found in the nucleus of the organism's cells. are found in the nucleus of the organism's cells. virus they called piscine reovirus, or PRV. The virus was described in Public Library of Science One.

“If the potential hosts are in close proximity, it goes through them like wildfire,”

Infected fish are physically stunted, and their muscles are so weakened that they have trouble swimming or even pumping blood. The disease is often fatal, and the original outbreak has been followed by 417 others in Norway and the United Kingdom. Every year there’s more of the disease, and it’s now been seen in wild fish, suggesting that farm escapees are infecting already-dwindling wild stocks

Marinet observes: The last surviving commercial wild fish stocks are to be found on the west coast of Canada (British Columbia) and in Alaska. If the situation described here develops further not only will the natural and cultural economy of the Native Canadian die, so also will the last wild salmon stocks which have, to date, been spared and survived the impact of salmon fish farming.

As the native Canadian video at the top of this article says : “Share This Video” — that is what you can do.

]]>Gulf of Mexico : Largest “dead zone” ever recorded this yearhttp://www.marinet.org.uk/gulf-of-mexico-largest-dead-zone-ever-recorded-this-year.html
Sat, 12 Aug 2017 06:39:43 +0000http://www.marinet.org.uk/?p=10156www.gizmodo.co.uk reports, 5th August 2017: Measuring 8,776 square miles, this year’s dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico is the largest ever recorded.

A recent expedition to the Gulf of Mexico has yielded the largest “dead zone” ever recorded in the area. Measuring 8,776 square miles, this massive patch of oxygen depleted water is wreaking havoc on the Gulf’s marine life — a consequence of unchecked agricultural run-off pouring down from North America’s Mississippi River.

Note:Louisiana Universities Marine Consortium states: The entire area was not mapped because of insufficient days on the ship, and that Quality Control/Quality Assurance standards for processing the data may change the overall estimate and other environmental parameters.

The average size for the last five years, including this year, is 15,032 square kilometers (= 5,806 square miles). The 31-year average (less 1989 and 2016) is 14,042 square kilometers (5,424 square miles). This year’s ‘Dead Zone’ is the size of New Jersey.

Gizmodo.co.uk continues: Dead zones appear in the Gulf every summer, and the typical size is around 5,800 square miles.

Back in 2002, scientists detected an unusually large dead zone stretching for 8,497 square miles, but this new one, detected just last week, is now the largest ever recorded. At a whopping 8,776 square miles (22,730 sq km), it’s 4.6 times larger than the target size set by the Gulf Hypoxia Task Force.

In the words of the National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration, this finding shows that “nutrient pollution, primarily from agriculture and developed land run-off in the Mississippi River watershed is continuing to affect the nation’s coastal resources and habitats in the Gulf.”

Hypoxia is a fancy term for low oxygen, and it’s primarily a problem for estuaries and coastal waters. These dead zones have dissolved oxygen concentrations of less than two to three parts per million, and they’re triggered by a variety of factors.

In the case of the Gulf of Mexico, excess nutrients stream down the Mississippi river, stimulating massive algal growths that eventually decompose — a process that depletes the oxygen required to support marine life. Sources of these nutrients include fertilizers from agriculture, golf courses, and suburban lawns, erosion of soil packed with nutrients, and sewage discharge from treatment plants.

Dead zones can cause a loss of fish habitat, or force fish to migrate to other areas to survive. They can also cause reproductive issues among marine animals. Studies suggest that dead zones in the Gulf are leading to fewer large shrimp, for instance. There are over 400 hypoxic zones in the world, but the Gulf of Mexico dead zone is the largest in the US, and one of the largest globally.

Note:Mightyearth.org advises that the primary source of this pollution is meat production up-river in the USA, and also states, July 2017: Fertilizer pollution is also the leading cause of annual toxic algae blooms that cause waterways across America to collapse into Dead Zones, which are toxic to marine life and unhealthy for recreationalists.

While fertilizer pollution starts in the Midwest, it flows down the Mississippi River until it finally dumps out into the Gulf of Mexico, which collapses into one of the world’s largest Dead Zones each year as a direct result.

Approximately 1.15 million metric tons of nitrogen pollution flowed into the Gulf of Mexico in 2016 alone,22 which is around 170 per cent more pollution than was dumped into the Gulf by the BP oil spill. While the BP spill was recognized as a major industry disaster on a national scale, fertilizer spills into the Gulf every year with little scrutiny or accountability.

This year’s Dead Zone is projected to be one of the largest ever, due to record levels of nitrate pollution flowing down the Mississippi River. The EPA calls water pollution from excess nitrogen and phosphorus “one of America’s most widespread, costly, and challenging environmental problems.”

Current estimates indicate that two thirds of the coastal rivers and bays in the United States are moderately to severely degraded from excess nitrogen pollution.

]]>Salmon becomes the first genetically engineered animal to enter the food supplyhttp://www.marinet.org.uk/salmon-becomes-the-first-genetically-engineered-animal-to-enter-the-food-supply.html
Sat, 12 Aug 2017 06:36:00 +0000http://www.marinet.org.uk/?p=10153The Guardian reports, 9th August 2017: Canadian supermarkets have become the first in the world to stock genetically modified fish, and about five tonnes of GM salmon have been sold in the country in recent months.
The sales figure was revealed in the most recent earnings report of the US-based AquaBounty Technologies, whose hybrid Atlantic salmon — which contains a geneA string of the DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid) molecule that is the fundamental unit of inheritance, so it is variations in the make up of this molecule in the gene that controls variations in an organism's appearance and behaviour. GenesA string of the DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid) molecule that is the fundamental unit of inheritance, so it is variations in the make up of this molecule in the gene that controls variations in an organism's appearance and behaviour. Genes are found in the nucleus of the organism's cells. are found in the nucleus of the organism's cells. from a Chinook salmon and a geneA string of the DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid) molecule that is the fundamental unit of inheritance, so it is variations in the make up of this molecule in the gene that controls variations in an organism's appearance and behaviour. GenesA string of the DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid) molecule that is the fundamental unit of inheritance, so it is variations in the make up of this molecule in the gene that controls variations in an organism's appearance and behaviour. Genes are found in the nucleus of the organism's cells. are found in the nucleus of the organism's cells. from the ocean pout — has been at the heart of a heated debate over transgenic animals as food.

This marks the first engineered animal product to be approved for sale, although GM food such as soy and corn are already available.

Originally developed by a group of Canadian scientists at Newfoundland’s Memorial University, the salmon can grow twice as fast as conventionally farmed Atlantic salmon, reaching adult size in some 18 months as compared to 30 months. The product also requires 75% less feed to grow to the size of wild salmon, reducing its carbon footprint by up to 25 times, the company has claimed.

In recent months, approximately five tonnes of GM salmon has been sold in Canada at a market price of US$5.30 per pound, AquaBounty said in a statement. “The sale and discussions with potential buyers clearly demonstrate that customers want our fish, and we look forward to increasing our production capacity to meet demand,” said Ronald Stotish, the company’s CEO.

As news broke that several tonnes of GM salmon had already been sold in Canada, organisations ranging from consumer rights groups to environmentalists reignited the call for mandatory labelling of GM foods in Canada.

“The first genetically modified animals have arrived in the market and Canadian consumers are becoming, unwittingly, the first guinea pigs,” said Thibault Rehn of the group Vigilance OGM.

“The company did not disclose where the GM salmon fillets were sold or for what purpose, and we’re shocked to discover that they’ve entered the market at this time,” said Lucy Sharratt of Canadian Biotechnology Action Network.

Two supermarket chains — IGA Quebec and Costco — have announced they will not stock GM salmon. Others welcomed the news, describing it as a breakthrough for a growing industry.

After more than two decades in regulatory limbo, AquaBounty’s salmon was approved for sale in Canada in 2016, paving the way for it to become the first genetically engineered animal to enter the food supply. Canadian officials said four years of testing had found the modified salmon to be as safe and nutritious as conventional salmon, meaning no special labelling would be required to sell it.

AquaBounty did not respond to an interview request from the Guardian or to questions regarding where in the Canada it had sold its salmon.

In 2015, AquaBounty salmon was approved in the US by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Two months later, however, the FDA issued a ban on the import and sale of GM fish until clear labelling guidelines were established.

Regulators in Canada pushed forward, despite fierce opposition. While the company claimed that GM fish could help curtail the over-fishing of Atlantic salmon and lessen the pressure on stocks of wild salmon, environmentalists worried that the transgenic fish — which is an Atlantic salmon with a growth hormone geneA string of the DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid) molecule that is the fundamental unit of inheritance, so it is variations in the make up of this molecule in the gene that controls variations in an organism's appearance and behaviour. GenesA string of the DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid) molecule that is the fundamental unit of inheritance, so it is variations in the make up of this molecule in the gene that controls variations in an organism's appearance and behaviour. Genes are found in the nucleus of the organism's cells. are found in the nucleus of the organism's cells. from a Pacific salmon as well as a geneA string of the DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid) molecule that is the fundamental unit of inheritance, so it is variations in the make up of this molecule in the gene that controls variations in an organism's appearance and behaviour. GenesA string of the DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid) molecule that is the fundamental unit of inheritance, so it is variations in the make up of this molecule in the gene that controls variations in an organism's appearance and behaviour. Genes are found in the nucleus of the organism's cells. are found in the nucleus of the organism's cells. from the ocean pout to promote year-round growth — could pose a risk to wild salmon populations.

The company has said its fish are sterile and are currently only being raised in landlocked tanks. Those sold in recent months in Canada are thought to have been bred in tanks in Panama, but the company is currently laying the groundwork to expand its operations to Prince Edward Island on Canada’s east coast.

Some 30 other species of GM fish — including tilapiathe common name for nearly a hundred species of cichlidFish from the family Cichlidae in the order Perciformes. Cichlids are members of a group known as the Labroidei, along with the wrasses (Labridae), damselfishes (Pomacentridae), and surfperches (Embiotocidae). This family is both large and diverse. At least 1,650 species have been scientifically described, making it one of the largest vertebrate families. New species are discovered annually, and many species remain undescribed. The actual number of species is therefore unknown, with estimates varying between 2,000 and 3,000. Cichlids are among the most popular freshwater fish kept in the home aquarium. fish from the tilapiine cichlidFish from the family Cichlidae in the order Perciformes. Cichlids are members of a group known as the Labroidei, along with the wrasses (Labridae), damselfishes (Pomacentridae), and surfperches (Embiotocidae). This family is both large and diverse. At least 1,650 species have been scientifically described, making it one of the largest vertebrate families. New species are discovered annually, and many species remain undescribed. The actual number of species is therefore unknown, with estimates varying between 2,000 and 3,000. Cichlids are among the most popular freshwater fish kept in the home aquarium. tribe. Tilapia are mainly freshwater fish inhabiting shallow streams, ponds, rivers and lakes and less commonly found living in brackish water. Historically, they have been of major importance in artisan fishing in Africa and the Levant and are of increasing importance in aquaculture and aquaponics. Tilapia can become problematic invasive species in new warm-water habitats such as Australia, whether deliberately or accidentally introduced, but generally not in temperate climates due to their inability to survive in cooler waters below about 21 °C (70 °F). and trout — are in development around the world, as are GM cows, chickens and pigs.

]]>Marine energy takes a step forward in Waleshttp://www.marinet.org.uk/marine-energy-takes-a-step-forward-in-wales.html
Wed, 09 Aug 2017 18:18:34 +0000http://www.marinet.org.uk/?p=10141Marine Energy Wales reports 7th August 2017: Marine Energy Wales are delighted to announce that they have received funding from the Coastal Communities Fund for their Marine Energy Test Area (META) project.

The project aims to create pre-consented testing areas in the Milford Haven Waterway for technology developers to deploy non-grid connected devices, test components and deployment techniques, as well as providing the opportunity for research.

Marine Energy Wales works at the forefront of the industry, attracting marine energy developers to Wales and supporting the growth of the sector. META is set to add to Wales’ offering, alongside the €100.4 million of EU funding, significant wave and tidal resource and array scale Demonstration Zones. META will provide increased opportunities for the up-skilling and diversification of local supply chain, and will contribute to the de-risking of project developments.

The Milford Haven Waterway, Pembrokeshire

Marine Energy Wales is an initiative developed and managed by Pembrokeshire Coastal Forum, a Community Interest Company that works to protect and enhance the coastal and marine environment for current and future generations.

Louise Rigby Williams, Project Manager of Marine Energy Wales said, “We are delighted that this funding will allow us to continue to play a key role in Wales’ ambitions to become a global leader in marine energy. META will provide yet another incentive for developers to bring their projects to Wales and will support our peripheral economies by creating jobs, encouraging innovation, and the clustering and diversification of our local supply chain.”

META is one pillar of Pembroke Dock Marine, a £76 million project signed off as part of the Swansea Bay City Deal in March which aims to develop a world class centre for marine energy development. This Coastal Communities Funding will be used to create one new full time job with Marine Energy Wales and 80 indirect jobs, as well as safeguarding four existing jobs.

Tim James, Director of Energy Development at the Port of Milford Haven said “Technology developers and marine operations specialists are already basing themselves in the region to take advantage of the extensive skill base, port facilities, proximity to grid and natural resource. The creation of a pre-consented area within the Waterway will further strengthen Pembroke Dock’s global proposition in this innovative sector.”

Marine Energy Wales are currently awaiting additional funding which will complete the financing of the project. The next steps will include local stakeholder engagement to assist in identifying the areas and the necessary leasing and licensing.

]]>Tritium contaminated water from Fukushima to be dumped in Pacific Oceanhttp://www.marinet.org.uk/tritium-contaminated-water-from-fukushima-to-be-dumped-in-pacific-ocean.html
Tue, 01 Aug 2017 08:53:30 +0000http://www.marinet.org.uk/?p=10131The Independent reports, 15th July 2017: Water tainted with tritium, a radioactive form of hydrogen, is to be released into the Pacific Ocean, says the head of the company responsible for the Fukushima clean-up operation.

There are around 580 of barrels containing the radioactive water which was used to cool the nuclear plant’s damaged reactors.

Picture: The Daily Telegraph, 14th July 2017.

Local residents are furious at plans to release the radioactive tritium from the 2011 Fukushima nuclear plant, which suffered a triple meltdown, into the sea.

“The decision has already been made,” said Takashi Kawamura, chairman of the Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO). Debate has raged over the disposal of almost 777,000 tons of waste containing tritium.

However, Tepco need to wait for the government’s final decision to release the water into the sea. “We cannot keep going if we do not have the support of the state,” Mr Kawamura said in a Japan Times report.

A supporter of releasing the water into the sea is Shunichi Tanaka, chairman of the Nuclear Regulation Authority. In the past, Tanaka has slated Tepco for their hesitant stance. “An operator lacking the will to take the initiative does not have the right to resume operation of nuclear reactors,” he said.

Local fishermen are against the proposal of ocean release, fearing that the negative publicity will affect their livelihoods. “Releasing (tritium) into the sea will create a new wave of unfounded rumours, making our efforts all for naught,” said Kanji Tachiya, head of a local fishermen’s co-operative.

Tritium is said to be of little danger to humans unless exposed to high quantities. According to NRA chairman Tanaka, the chemical is “so weak in its radioactivity it won’t penetrate plastic wrapping”.

Simon Boxall, an oceanographer at the University of Southampton told the Guardian: “In the broad scale of things, if they do end up putting the material in the Pacific, it will have minimal effect on an ocean basin scale.”

Environmental activists fear that dumping the tritium-laced water into the ocean could become commonplace.

“They say that it will be safe because the ocean is large so it will be diluted, but that sets a precedent that can be copied, essentially permitting anyone to dump nuclear waste into our seas,” Aileen Mioko-Smith of Green Action Japan said.

The clean-up operation from the Fukushima disaster is estimated to cost around $20bn (£14bn).

Note: Tritium is a radioactive form of hydrogen, used in research, fusion reactors and neutron generators. The radioactive properties of tritium are very useful. By mixing tritium with a chemical that emits light in the presence of radiation, a phosphor, a continuous light source is made. This can be applied to situations where a dim light is needed but where using batteries or electricity is not possible or practical. Rifle sights and exit signs are two examples of where this phenomenon is commonly used. The phosphor sights help increase night-time firing accuracy and the exit signs can be life saver if there is a loss of power. The radioactive decay product of tritium is a low energy beta that cannot penetrate the outer dead layer of human skin. Therefore, the main hazard associated with tritium is internal exposure from inhalation or ingestion. In addition, due to the relatively long half life and short biological half life, an intake of tritium must be in large amounts to pose a significant health risk. Although, in keeping with the philosophy of ALARA, internal exposure should be kept as low as practical.

Marinet observes: The tritium arising here comes from cooling water sent through the collapsed nuclear reactors in order to keep their temperature under control. This water becomes contaminated with a very broad range of radionuclides. The water is cleansed for these radionuclides which are then stored separately. However there is currently no technical means to extract the tritium — hence the tritium contaminated cooling water is accumulating, and now requires disposal. The need to release tritium arising from this source is likely to be long-term. All marine life in the vicinity of the dumping will be exposed to the tritium. Tritium emits low energy beta particles, and the tritium isotope has a half-life of 12.3 years.

]]>Sea beds take years to recover from bottom trawling, say scientistshttp://www.marinet.org.uk/sea-beds-take-years-to-recover-from-bottom-trawling-say-scientists.html
Sun, 30 Jul 2017 20:15:47 +0000http://www.marinet.org.uk/?p=10128Nature.com reports 20th July 2017: Trawling the bottom of the ocean can strip up to 41% of invertebrate life from the sea bed, and ocean floors can take more than six years to recover.

Globally, around one-quarter of wild-caught seafood comes from bottom trawling, but the impact of this type of fishing has been unclear.

‘Otter trawls’, which use heavy boards at the front of nets to plough up the sea bed, were the least harmful, removing around 6% of bottom-dwelling invertebrates.

Most damaging were hydraulic dredges, which use high-pressure water to stir up animals for harvesting. These removed 41% of invertebrates.

Recovery from losing 50% of an area’s biomassThe amount of living matter. This is therefore a different measure to numbers of organisms. So, for example, there is much more biomass in 1 elephant than there is in 1000 fleas and there may be more biomass in 100 large cod than you would find in 150 small (because of over fishing) cod. to trawling takes between 1.9 and 6.4 years, according to the authors’ model.

Combining the model with maps of trawling frequency will allow the assessment of this type of fishing on unprecedented scales, say the authors.

Marinet observes: Bottom trawling has long been observed to be a most damaging form of fishing, destroying the biota upon which fish and the local ecosystem depend. Nevertheless, few restrictions originating from governmental quarters apply to it. Voluntary restraint by fishermen is rare. A veryclear exampleof the ecological meltdown caused by bottom trawling is the experience of the Firth of Clyde, Scotland, documented by Dr. Ruth Thurstan and Prof. Callum Roberts.

The situation is made worse when trawling is repeated continuously. Trawling of the same spot often occurs more than once a year, and is frequently repeated year after year. The result is the severe damage reported by the Bangor University study, and in extremis by the R. Thurstan and C. Roberts study.

If the UK takes control of its fisheries following exit from the EU, and especially in light of therecent announcementby the UK Government that exclusive control is to be re-established out to 12 nautical miles, then the future of UK fisheries will greatly depend on their management by the UK Government. Will this embrace restrictions on bottom trawling in order to rebuild and sensibly harvest fish stocks?

]]>Microplastics in fish need to be monitored, say scientistshttp://www.marinet.org.uk/microplastics-in-fish-need-to-be-monitored-say-scientists.html
Sun, 30 Jul 2017 20:05:42 +0000http://www.marinet.org.uk/?p=10121The Independent reports, 27th July 2017: Plastic micro-particles are getting into the flesh of fish eaten by humans, according to a new study.

A team of scientists from Malaysia and France discovered a total of 36 tiny pieces of plastic in the bodies of 120 mackerel, anchovies, mullets and croakers.

They warned that as plastic attracts toxins in the environment, these poisons could be released into people’s bodies after they ate the fish. The plastics found included nylon, polystyrene and polyethylene.

Writing in the journal Scientific Reports, the researchers said: “The widespread distribution of microplastics in aquatic bodies has subsequently contaminated a diverse range of aquatic biota, including those sold for human consumption such as shellfish and mussels.

“Therefore, seafood products could be a major route of human exposure to microplastics.

“Microplastics were suggested to exert their harmful effects by providing a medium to facilitate the transport of other toxic compounds such as heavy metals and persistent organic pollutants to the body of organisms. Upon ingestion, these chemicals may be released and cause toxicity.”

They suggested people eating the fish examined in this study, which are often dried and sold across Malaysia and neighbouring countries, could consume up to 246 pieces of microplastic a year.

However, they added: “The majority of the tested fish in this study did not contain microplastics. Therefore, it is less likely that an individual would ingest the suggested maximum number of microplastics per annum.”

Researchers also said it was unclear whether the particles were actually carrying toxic chemicals so “we cannot evaluate the health risks associated with the consumption of dried fish at this moment”.

They suggested the level of contamination should be monitored.

“The increase in plastics disposal coupled with their continuous fragmentation is expected to increase microplastic concentrations over time. As such, it will become increasingly important to regularly assess microplastic loads in seafood products, including dried fish.

“Given the fact that dried fish are often consumed as a whole, they may be responsible for the translocation of a significant amount of microplastics into the body of consumers.”

Other studies have suggested that shellfish could be an even greater source of microplastic in the human diet.

The researchers noted that it had been estimated that “top European shellfish consumers” might consume up to 11,000 microplastic pieces a year.

]]>UK to re-establish exclusive control over fisheries out to 12 nautical mileshttp://www.marinet.org.uk/uk-to-re-establish-exclusive-control-over-fisheries-out-to-12-nautical-miles.html
Sun, 30 Jul 2017 06:44:54 +0000http://www.marinet.org.uk/?p=10115Dept. for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) reports 2nd July 2017: The United Kingdom will take an historic step towards delivering a fairer deal for the UK fishing industry by triggering the withdrawal from an arrangement that has allowed foreign countries access to UK waters, Environment Secretary Michael Gove has confirmed.

As part of moves to prepare the UK for the opportunities of leaving the European Union, the Government will officially begin withdrawal from the London Fisheries Convention.

The London Fisheries Convention, signed in 1964 before the UK joined the European Union, allows vessels from five European countries to fish within six and 12 nautical miles of the UK’s coastline.

It sits alongside the EU Common Fisheries Policy (CFP), which allows all European vessels access between 12 and 200 nautical miles of the UK and sets quotas for how much fish each nation can catch.

The UK will notify the other Member States signed up to the London Fisheries Convention, triggering a two-year withdrawal period — in a similar way to the Article 50 letter which began a two-year withdrawal from the EU.

Securing a fairer deal for the UK fishing industry is a Manifesto pledge and one of the Government’s key objectives for Brexit.

When the UK leaves the EU, it will no longer be bound by the Common Fisheries Policy but, without action, restrictions under the historic London Fisheries Convention would still apply. By withdrawing from the London Fisheries Convention the UK will no longer be bound by the existing access agreements.

Instead the UK will regain control of fishing access to its waters and become fully responsible for the management of fisheries so it can ensure a fair, sustainable and profitable industry for all our fishermen.

Environment Secretary Michael Gove said: “Leaving the London Fisheries Convention is an important moment as we take back control of our fishing policy. It means for the first time in more than fifty years we will be able to decide who can access our waters.

“This is an historic first step towards building a new domestic fishing policy as we leave the European Union — one which leads to a more competitive, profitable and sustainable industry for the whole of the UK.

“As announced in the Queen’s Speech, the Government will introduce a Fisheries Bill to control access to the UK’s waters and set fishing quotas once we have left the EU. This is supplemented by our decision to leave the London Fisheries Convention.

“Working closely with our neighbours, the Government will design a new fishing policy which allows the fishing industry and coastal communities to thrive, in line with our international obligations, as we build a deep and special partnership with the European Union after Brexit.”

Barrie Deas, Chief Executive of the National Federation of Fishermen’s Organisations, said: “This is welcome news and an important part of establishing the UK as an independent coastal state with sovereignty over its own exclusive economic zone.”

An estimated 10,000 tonnes of fish, including mackerel and herring, were caught by fishing vessels from the London Fisheries Convention countries France, Belgium, Germany, Ireland and the Netherlands in 2015 within 12 nautical miles of the British coast — worth an estimated £17 million.In the coming months and years, the UK Government will be working with the industry and marine scientists, as well as the devolved administrations, to preserve and increase fish stocks for their long-term sustainability, and secure prosperity for fishermen across the UK when it leaves the European Union.

Starting this summer, there will be a period of engagement on the Fisheries Bill with the devolved administrations, fishermen, trade organisations, fish processors and the public to make sure the UK delivers a deal that works for the whole of the UK.

]]>UN lays groundwork for an Ocean Treatyhttp://www.marinet.org.uk/un-lays-groundwork-for-an-ocean-treaty.html
Thu, 27 Jul 2017 09:16:00 +0000http://www.marinet.org.uk/?p=10095The High Seas Alliance, an alliance of 32 NGOs and the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN), reports 21st July 2017: “States meeting at the United Nations in New York today took an important step towards launching negotiations for a new treaty to protect the biodiversityBiological diversity in an environment as indicated by numbers of different species of plants and animals. of the high seas (areas beyond the national jurisdiction).

Making up two thirds of the global ocean, marine life in the high seas is not effectively protected. A new treaty will rectify this, putting in place measures to protect the rich and globally significant biodiversityBiological diversity in an environment as indicated by numbers of different species of plants and animals. and ecosystem services of the high seas and to govern activities undertaken there sustainably.

Although the wording of the recommendation did not reflect the very strong support for rapid UN action towards a treaty, it will enable the General Assembly to convene an Intergovernmental Conference. The 35 member organisations of the High Seas Alliance which have campaigned for this treaty were pleased with the recommendation to move forwards.

Peggy Kalas of the High Seas Alliance said: “This is a significant step for the high seas and humanity since we are all dependent on the ocean for a healthy planet. A new treaty will bring law and governance to this most neglected and besieged part of our world and we are closer to that goal now.”

The decision of the Preparatory Committee will now go the UN General Assembly. The overwhelming majority of states are pushing for the next step to be an Intergovernmental Conference (IGC) convened in 2018. An IGC would mean formal negotiations on the text of a new treaty would commence.

Sylvia Earle said: “The nations of the world took important steps towards a treaty today. The high seas are half of the world and need the rule of law. To those who have worked so hard at the UN and in support of this moment, we extend an ocean of gratitude and carry forward optimism for a high seas treaty.”

Veronica Frank of Greenpeace said: “Although we hoped to see a starting date included for the negotiating conference, it was good to see such overwhelming support for moving the process forward and so many people around the world speaking up for ocean protection.

“It is now for the UN General Assembly to make that step forward for the ocean and for all the people that depend on it. Anything less would fall short of what is our blue planet needs to recover.”

Maria Damanaki of the Nature Conservancy said: “This is a demonstration of global collaboration, and a step towards protecting half of our planet, which today is an unregulated no man’s land. We join our partners in the High Seas Alliance in commending the states and organisations that have worked effortlessly to make this happen.”

“This represents a major step in a long journey driven by a large number of committed states” added Tim Packeiser of WWF. “We need to continue this momentum through to the General Assembly to deliver a resolution for an Intergovernmental Conference”.

In June of this year all States signed on to a global call to action for the ocean, of which the high seas is a major part.

Marinet observes: The mission of the High Seas Alliance is to conserve the high seas – which cover half the planet. These are the areas of the ocean which are beyond national jurisdiction (beyond 200 nautical miles from the coast of any nation) and which have no ownership and virtually no governance.

The prospect of a UN Ocean Treaty which will bring governance to these high seas has become the “holy grail” of those who want to protect the Earth’s ocean which is at the moment essentially unmanaged and lawless.

Earth is an Ocean Planet. Ocean covers over 70% of its surface, and to depths greater than the highest mountains. The ecological processes that take place in the ocean are the cornerstone to life on Earth. Should these ecosystems fail or falter then life as we know it perishes, i.e. our extinction.

If we neglect the ocean and fail to take steps to ensure our actions respect and conserve it, we merit that extinction. Life on this Ocean Planet has no place for the behaviour of such a species.

At present our record is not good. Some would say, appalling. Fishing practices worldwide display chronic over-fishing, with some species and areas in a critical condition. Ocean temperatures are rising and affecting coral reefs adversely, along with ocean currents and their circulatory systems which in turn determine the overall climate patterns on the continents. The ocean is also becoming more acidic due to the absorption of higher levels of atmospheric CO2 from years of fossil fuel burning, and this acidification affects all creatures with calcareous shells including the vast population of calcareous planktonPlankton is a generic term for a wide variety of the smallest yet most important organisms form that drift in our oceans. They can exist in larger forms of more than 20cm as the larval forms of jellyfish, squid, starfish, sea urchins, etc. and can be algae, bacterial or even viral down to as small as 0.2µm. They are nutrient and light dependent, and form the essential foodchain baseline for larger dependent aquatic lifeforms. Fish species rely on the density and distribution of zooplanktonZooplankton form the group of tiny animals such as minuscule jellyfish and rotifers present in the marine environment. They are a major source of food for those higher up the food chain, and their numbers relate directly as a good indicator to the nutrient enrichment of the sea of the area.
Note: phytoplankton are microscopic plants, and zooplankton are microscopic animals. to coincide with first-feeding larvae for good survival of their larvae, which can otherwise starve. Man-made impacts such as dredging, dams on rivers, waste dumping, etc can severely affect zooplanktonZooplankton form the group of tiny animals such as minuscule jellyfish and rotifers present in the marine environment. They are a major source of food for those higher up the food chain, and their numbers relate directly as a good indicator to the nutrient enrichment of the sea of the area.
Note: phytoplankton are microscopic plants, and zooplankton are microscopic animals. density and distribution, which can in turn strongly affect larval survival and thus breeding success and stock strength of fish species and the entire ecosystem. They also form the essential basis of CO2 take up in our seas ecosystem, hence Global Warming. (tiny plants) which live in the ocean and regenerate the planet’s oxygen. Disrupt these ecological systems, and life as we know it becomes severely challenged. Can we survive that?

It would be a foolhardy person who answered yes to that question. That is why proper governance and management of the ocean has become so essential. An Ocean Treaty, supported by all nations in the UN, is the only solution. This is not a maybe decision, it is an imperative. Without it, we will become extinct.

Is the version of a UN Ocean Treaty that is mooted — there is no actual version or text on the table yet, and there will not be for some time — workable?

What the participating States and NGOs agreed recently (June and July 2017) is only the declaration of an aspiration, and nothing more. Some NGOs, Greenpeace for example, have set out a governance framework based on creating marine protected areas (including no-take marine reserves) covering around 30% of the high seas, with States declaring that they are willing to co-operate in the creation, monitoring and management of these protected areas.

However proposals such as this do not address the question of enforcement — a police force and judicial system — and substantial areas of the high seas (70%) will not be marine protected areas.

This does not look like a workable Ocean Treaty. So, what does?An Ocean Treaty has to built on the following fundamentals:

There is an International Governing Body.

The Governing Body has complete jurisdiction over the ocean — administrative and judicial.

All of the ocean (100%) is a marine protected area.

This structure means that there is an international governing body, with legal authority granted through a UN Treaty. This body manages and protects all the ocean — not just a bit here and there, but everywhere.

This governing body has international authority, which means all nations are bound by its actions and decisions. Its authority comes from the UN Treaty, and its administrative structure (its bureaucracy and executive) is appointed/elected via the UN Treaty.

It has universal administrative and judicial authority throughout the ocean and, because the default position is that all the ocean is a marine protected area, this means that no activity can occur without its consent.

This consent means it has the power to raise money (revenue) through its licensing and so finance its own administration, and has judicial power to enforce proper governance and behaviour by the withdrawal of the licence.

This formula means protection of the ocean is guaranteed — in every aspect and from all perspectives — because the default position is that the whole ocean is a marine protected area and there is an international governing authority, legitimately created and constituted on an ongoing basis, which has total jurisdiction.

It passes the test — It has legitimacy, it is a UN Treaty, and it is workable.

Under this formula all the ocean is protected because this is the default position, and the governing authority is self-financing, and has a full and unqualified mandate to deliver governance in all its forms and, most importantly, through enforcement.

Marinet has published this blueprint earlier, clickhere. It is currently being worked up to a full model by its author — a Marinet member — with publication next year.

Footnote: Do not let yourself think that all this is academic, or that an Ocean Treaty is merely wishful thinking and the aspiration of dreamers. You would be wrong to make that mistake. Be in no doubt, it is an imperative. This means it is needed right now, and needed in the fully-fledged form set out here. If the ocean ecosystem loses its biodiversityBiological diversity in an environment as indicated by numbers of different species of plants and animals. and integrity, as is presently threatened, life on this planet goes into a tail-spin and we die. Yes, that means we become extinct. That’s the reality confronting us. Take action and lobby for genuine 21st Century thinking, the Ocean Treaty is the route to our survival.

]]>Marinet summarises Archaeological Record for Goodwin Sands ahead of magnetometer reporthttp://www.marinet.org.uk/marinet-summarises-archaeological-record-for-goodwin-sands-ahead-of-magnetometer-report.html
Thu, 27 Jul 2017 08:02:38 +0000http://www.marinet.org.uk/?p=10088Marinet has written to Historic England, the Marine Management Organisation and the Dover Harbour Board’s consultants, 8th July 2017, ahead of publication of the results of the magnetometer survey of the proposed dredge site (Area 521) in South Goodwin Sands.

This magnetometer survey (which detects ferrous objects to approximately 2 metres depth of sand) has been required by Historic England and the MMO because of concerns about the presence in the proposed dredge site and surrounding area of crashed WWII aircraft and historic shipwrecks including sunken vessels from WWI and II, and the fact that earlier sonar surveys may have missed their presence.

Crashed military aircraft are assured automatic protection under the Protection of Military remains Act 1986 and naval shipwrecks since 1914 likewise if specifically listed.

Marinet has written to Historic England, the MMO and the Harbour Board’s consultants to point out that sonar surveys (which are being repeated in conjunction with the magnetometer survey) commonly fail to identify archaeological and historical material which is buried by sand and are thus undetectable to sonar techniques. This failure is evident, Marinet points out, from the conclusions of the earlier EIA sonar surveys.

Equally crucially, WWII aircraft were largely made of non-ferrous material. Their structure was made of aluminium alloy and wood with canvas outer sheathing, and even the engines of planes like the Spitfire had engine cylinder blocks made of aluminium alloy. This means that a magnetometer survey is not necessarily guaranteed to detect their presence.

Also nearly all ships prior to the beginning of the 20th Century were wooden, thus wrecks will be equally impervious to detection by a magnetometer. A magnetometer survey will thus be detecting incidental and associated items — cannon balls, propellers, engine components and such like — and will require very careful interpretation.

A copy of the Marinet summary of the Archaeological and Historical record, July 2017, may be seen here.

]]>Devon Wildlife Trust wants strong controls on Wrasse being captured by salmon farming industryhttp://www.marinet.org.uk/devon-wildlife-trust-wants-strong-controls-on-wrasse-being-captured-by-salmon-farming-industry.html
Tue, 18 Jul 2017 08:35:46 +0000http://www.marinet.org.uk/?p=10075The Devon Wildlife Trust reports, 26th June 2017: Devon Wildlife Trust is calling for the immediate ban on live capture of all wrasse species in the South West from within Marine Protected Areas.

Wrasse are being captured live from our coastline in very high numbers and transported to Scotland where they are used to control parasites in farmed salmon. Mortality during the storage and transportation of live wrasse can be very high, with cuckoo wrasse being the most susceptible of the five wrasse species used for this purpose.

Recent controls have been implemented by the Inshore Fisheries and Conservation Authority in Devon but the precautionary principle must be adopted as there is very little understanding of the longer term impacts on the health of this fascinating native species and the fragile reef environments the wrasse help to sustain.

Male corkwing wrasse with nest off South Devon by Paul Naylor

Summary of the issues
Wrasse are long lived fish that thrive on the rocky shores across Devon, Dorset and Cornwall. They are highly territorial and reproduce slowly which means populations are very slow to recover after over-fishing.

There is no current estimate of local wrasse populations and little available research on the impacts of fishing on the species and their reef environments, so it is impossible to determine what is a safe level of fishing for this species.

In 2015, during an 18 week period, over 57,000 wrasse were captured between Weymouth and Lulworth. There are moves to significantly expand the wrasse pot fishery in Dorset, Devon and Cornwall where there are suitable rocky reef habitats. Fishing for wrasse is currently taking place within our most treasured marine environments, for example within Plymouth Sound Special Area of Conservation. Once commercially viable stocks of wrasse are exhausted from Plymouth our fear is this practice could move to ports throughout the southwest.

The number of traps (known as pots) has been limited to 480 in the area and no controls have been enforced on where these can be placed. This risks serious depletion of fish stocks in specific locations.

Impacts of commercial wrasse fishing could, potentially, be devastating to the species and to reef ecology. Until we have detailed knowledge of the impacts of fishing on this scale on these important species and their marine reef habitats, an immediate and total ban on live capture is essential, until the evidence enables and informs a sustainable fishery.

Background
Scottish salmon farms have an increasing problem with sea lice since intensive farming operations started 30-40 years ago. Sea lice are naturally occurring parasites which attach themselves to salmon and can reduce their health and growth. When fish are farmed in high densities the problem is magnified.

Sea lice are controlled in conventional fish farms through the use of chemicals and other techniques such as washing with warm water. Every three or four years, sea lice become resistant to chemical treatments and new ones need to be found.

Wrasse as a Biocontrol
In the 1990s salmon farms trialled the use of ‘cleaner fish’ to reduce the lice parasite problem. By using ‘cleaner fish’ salmon farms exploit natural tendencies of certain fish to remove and eat the parasites. This approach, however, never really took off as new chemical treatments were found instead. Currently there are no new chemical treatments on the horizon so there is an increased emphasis on use of ‘cleaner fish’.

Wrasse have been targeted for use as ‘cleaner fish’ and have been live caught in very high numbers and transported to fish farms to reduce lice infections.

Wrasse and their ecology
Currently five species of wrasse are caught by the fish farms

Goldsinney

Rock cook

Corkwing

Ballan

Cuckoo Wrasse

Wrasse are carnivorous and mostly feed on shellfish and live all around our rocky shores. They are very variable in size, ballan wrasse can grow up to an amazing 4kg in weight but most species are much smaller often weighing 0.5-1kg. The cuckoo wrasse is one of our most colourful UK fish and wouldn’t be out of place in the Great Barrier Reef. Males have a bright blue head and tail and a mixture of orange and blue coloured body.

Wrasse have amazing life stories and play a very important role in the ecological health of our reef ecosystems — many of which have been designated as Marine Protected Areas due to the internationally important habitats and species which are found there.

Ballan wrasse are all born female, with some changing to males as they mature. Cuckoo wrasse can also change sex, with females changing to males if no males are present. Both ballan and corkwing wrasse make nests, with the males guarding the eggs until they hatch. Corkwing wrasse nests can sometimes be found in rock nooks and crannies at low tide on rocky shores. 5-20% of corkwing wrasse males are ‘sneaker males’. Smaller and almost indistinguishable from females, they ‘sneak’ into nests where eggs have already been laid to try to fertilise them.

How are Wrasse Caught?
All wrasse species are targeted using baited pots. These are typically set in reef areas of depths up to 10m (to prevent mortality resulting from fish being brought up from depth). Some salmon farms and their agents are providing fisheries with pots and holding tanks, reducing set-up costs and helping to increase local fishing effort.

The fish are then transferred to ‘consolidation tanks’ to increase numbers before it is economically viable to transport them to Scotland. High numbers of fish can die during this storage and transportation process. The fish are then treated with a range of chemicals before they are released into salmon farms.

Fish farms are investigating breeding wrasse, however due to the slow development and breeding rates, this is not currently viable. This means there is an increased emphasis on collecting from the wild which is damaging local reef ecosystems.

Until recently, cleaner fish have been sourced from west-coast Scottish fishers, but 2015 saw the first use of pots for collecting wrasse in the south-west, with a small number of boats from Weymouth taking part in the new fishery. There are moves to significantly expand the wrasse pot fishery in Dorset, Devon and Cornwall where there are suitable rocky reef habitats. In 2015 during an 18 week period over 57,000 wrasse were captured between Weymouth and Lulworth. Fishing for wrasse is currently taking place within our most treasured marine environments, for example within Plymouth Sound Special Area of Conservation.

Based on discussions between Devon and Severn Inshore Fisheries and Conservation Authority and salmon farms and agents we could see up to 480 pots in the D&SIFCA area.

What is the impact?
Catching live wrasse in high numbers will cause significant local impacts on their populations and the ecology of the sea:

sustainability of harvest — most wrasse species are slow growing and don’t reproduce very quickly making them highly susceptible to overfishing

local populations — wrasse species are also highly territorial so local populations are easily targeted and very slow to recover

impact on reef ecology — nobody yet knows what impacts wholescale removal of wrasse will have on our fragile marine reef ecosystems and the natural balance could be thrown into chaos. This could be devastating for not only the wrasse but habitats and species which depend on them for their survival. As wrasse function as ‘cleaner fish’, their removal from the reef environment could result in loss of this ‘service’ to reef ecology. Ultimately, wrasse are an integral part of reef ecosystems and more work is needed to fully understand the potential impacts of their loss on these special, and fragile, habitats.

Surrounding this whole issue is a lack of knowledge of a whole range of factors including local populations, reproduction rates and the ecological role played by wrasse, all of which make the development of management measures more difficult. Impacts of commercial wrasse fishing on this scale could, potentially, be devastating to the species and to reef ecology. Until we fully understand what the range and scale of impacts and how to mitigate against them, we need an immediate total ban on the live capture of all wrasse species with MPAs.

Who manages the fisheries?
Inshore fisheries in Devon are managed by the Devon and Severn Inshore Fisheries and Conservation Authority. The IFCA have a responsibility to implement measures required to ensure fisheries are sustainable and do not have a significant impact on MPAs. Natural England are the conservation advisors to the IFCA where fisheries have potential impacts on Marine Protected Areas.

Until June 2017 there were no controls governing the wrasse fishery and very limited data available to guide decisions. Since the 15th June controls have been agreed, to be implemented soon after they were announced. Controls include:

Fully documented fishery (on-board surveys from IFCA officers as well as all landings to be recorded)

This still means that significant numbers of wrasse can therefore be taken from within MPAs without evidence to inform decisions on the likely impacts to the reef ecology. We are urging for this troubling situation to change and for a precautionary approach to be adopted: an immediate halt to all live wrasse caught within Devon MPAs.

]]>Devon Wildlife Trust launches Wrasse petition, and says new measures are not enoughhttp://www.marinet.org.uk/devon-wildlife-trust-launches-wrasse-petition-and-says-new-measures-are-not-enough.html
Tue, 18 Jul 2017 07:52:16 +0000http://www.marinet.org.uk/?p=10062The Devon Wildlife Trust reports, 14th July 2017: Following our wrasse campaign, new measures have been announced by authorities this week. But DWT believes they do not go far enough to ensure prevention of damage to our Marine Protected Areas.

In June, DWT raised the alarm when we heard that a wrasse fishery had begun in Devon’s inshore waters. Our concerns stemmed from the experience of a previous wrasse fishery in Dorset which removed 57,000 fish during just 18 weeks of operation in 2015. The numbers removed from Devon will now be documented (we haven’t been made aware of the catch size to date) but it is expected to run into the tens of thousands.

Our concerns prompted us to launch the ‘Save our Wrasse’ campaign on the 26 June. Since then the petition has been signed by more than 2,600 people. Many of these petitioners have also contacted their local Devon MPs — and we have had responses from a number of MPs.

These are a welcome step forward and we are encouraged by the swift action by the IFCA.

But Devon Wildlife Trust doesn’t believe that they go far enough to ensure prevention of long term damage to Devon’s delicate marine environment from the commercial fishing for live wrasse for transportation to Scottish salmon farms.

Our specific concerns are:

We still don’t know what the impacts of the wrasse fishery are. How much catch can the sensitive reef habitats sustain?

We have seen nothing to reassure us that the fishery will stop by 2019. The salmon farming representative’s statement to the IFCA that they aim to source wrasse from aquaculture and therefore stop catch from the wild is vague and aspirational.

In light of the above our campaign aims remain the same. We call for:

An immediate and total halt on the live capture of all wrasse species within Marine Protected Areas off the South West coast of England

A proper study to be undertaken into the range and scale of impacts of wrasse fishing, and how to mitigate for them

There is a worrying lack of good evidence as to the impacts of the wrasse fishery. It is recognised that there will be significant local depletions of fish and we expect that recovery will be very slow.

Without detailed information on the impacts of live wrasse fishing on reef habitats it is not possible to determine the sustainability of the fishing activities.

In the overwhelming majority of our seas and coasts economic interests are put before those of wildlife. Our Marine Protected Areas — such as Plymouth Sound and Estuaries SACSpecial Areas of Conservation — are the final refuges where the protection of designated features legally takes precedence over other interests.

Wrasse are a key part of the reef ecosystems around our coasts and help to maintain the rich balance of wildlife there. We simply do not know what the impacts of removing large numbers of wrasse will be. That’s why we are insisting on a precautionary approach to this fishery within Marine Protected Areas.

Marinet observes: When will the salmon fish farming industry, and the public who consume its product, understand that the business model for this industry is ecologically disastrous?

Indeed the need to understand this reality extends further, and one must ask when the Government will intervene to require the amendment of this appalling business model? What’s more, when will the national environmental NGOs accept that they too have a responsibility to inform the Government and the public of the ecological consequences of this type of factory farming?

Let’s be clear — salmon fish farming as currently practised is factory farming, pure and simple.

When it comes to livestock reared on land, such as poultry and pigs, there is already agroundswell of opinionopposed to factory farming. Yet, when it comes to salmon fish farming opposition isminimal.

Intensive salmon farming where huge numbers of artificially reared salmon are caged up in a confined space leads to disease, and particularly parasites. To combat this, heavy does of chemical pesticides are administered. These leach into the wider environment (both parasites and chemicals), and the consumer product contains pesticide residues and is “manicured” to conceal the existence of their diseased bodies. If this was more widely known, few would readily buy the product.

However who is telling this story? The Government and national marine NGOs?

The reality of all of this has not even begun to embrace the huge impact that feeding of these farmed salmon has on wild fish populations and the ecological balance of our seas – salmon are carnivores, and require to eat around 3kg of wild fish in order to produce 1kg of their own body weight.

Salmon fish farmers now want to try “biological control” of their parasite problem due to sea lice, and are scouring the UK’s seas for Wrasse which, as a part of their natural diet, will eat such creatures — somewhat like birds feeding off the lice and insects living on the back of wild animals in an African game reserve.

The only trouble is that vast numbers of wrasse are required to make this a practical option for the salmon farmers, thus causing devastation to stocks of wild wrasse and the ecological balance of the seas where the wild wrasse live.

Not only that. Many wrasse die as they are transported, rather like African slaves did in the ships when they were transported during the 18th Century across the Atlantic by slave traders, and on reaching their destination the wrasse are then confined within the enclosed space of the salmon farm cages to serve, as slaves, in the delivery of “biological control” for the afflicted salmon.

The whole reality is horrendous.

When will Government and national marine NGOs act to correct this abominable trade? When will they demand that the farming of salmon, if it must exist, follows a business model that has compassion and ecological sense at its heart?

We all deserve better, from the salmon and the wrasse to the consuming public. The time for this is now — sign the Devon Wildlife Trustpetition.

]]>Bradwell decides against further FED discharges into the Blackwater Estuary MCZhttp://www.marinet.org.uk/bradwell-decides-against-further-fed-discharges-into-the-blackwater-estuary-mcz.html
Tue, 18 Jul 2017 07:44:41 +0000http://www.marinet.org.uk/?p=10056The Nuclear Decommissioning Authority announced 21st June 2017: “The site of the former Bradwell nuclear power station [Blackwater estuary, Essex] has now successfully dealt with all of its Fuel Element Debris (FED) waste mdash; a major source of intermediate level radioactive waste at the Essex site.

Bradwell nuclear site in Essex

“This is an important step towards the site’s planned closure, as part of the NDA’s mission to clean up and decommission the UK’s earliest nuclear sites.

Magnox Ltd and its supply chain used innovative techniques and unique solutions to manage the waste, which mainly consists of pieces of the magnesium alloy cladding that surrounds Magnox nuclear fuel. They dissolved the material in acid and explored new options for disposing of the waste. The result is a reduction in the hazards on the site and shortening the FED treatment project by more than a year.

Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA) Chief Executive, David Peattie, said: “This is another really important milestone and a huge step forward in cleaning up and decommissioning the UK’s earliest nuclear sites. Finding new solutions and techniques to deal with radioactive waste is helping us to do things more quickly and efficiently, making our sites safer sooner and providing best value for the taxpayer. I would like to thank everyone involved in delivering this successful programme.”

65 tonnes of FED were treated in an on-site ‘dissolution plant’, which dissolved the waste in an acid, separated the radioactive materials and reduced the volume of the solid waste by more than 90 per cent. Over half of the FED at Bradwell was re-classified as suitable for disposal as Low Level Waste (LLW) in a first-of-a-kind collaboration between Magnox Ltd, the Low Level Waste Repository Ltd (LLWR) and specialist contractor Tradebe-Inutec.

More than 140 tonnes of FED have now been sent to Tradebe-Inutec as LLW for treatment and eventual disposal at the Low Level Waste Repository in west Cumbria mdash; saving around 2 years of dissolution operations.

Fuel Element Debris (FED)

Bob Nichols, Magnox Ltd’s Bradwell Site Closure Director, said: “I want to pay tribute to the Bradwell and wider Magnox workforce who have worked tirelessly to manage Bradwell’s FED inventory, which has proved to be one of the most challenging work programmes undertaken by Magnox.

“We have shown we are able to work collaboratively, both with our supply chain and other parts of the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority estate, to accelerate progress without compromising our high safety standards, which stands us in good stead as the site approaches Care and Maintenance.

“A second major achievement at the site is the demolition of the used fuel ponds complex — which was used to cool and store spent nuclear fuel under water after it was taken out of the reactors when the site was generating electricity.”

The redundant buildings were decontaminated over a 4 year period, which meant they could be taken down using conventional demolition methods. The remaining buildings on the site will now be enclosed in weatherproof cladding in preparation for Care and Maintenance.

Marinet observes: This is a major surprise and turn-around in nuclear waste management policy at Bradwell, and it is most welcome.

It was in March of this year that the Environment Agency announced, after a long and protracted public consultation relating to the discharge permit EIA process, that Magnox Ltd’s Bradwell plant could discharge waste nitrates, heavy metals and radioactivity into the Blackwater Estuary MCZMarine Conservation ZoneMarine Conservation Zone.

The MCZMarine Conservation ZoneMarine Conservation Zone hosts the most significant remaining UK population of the native oyster (Ostrea edulis) which is still commercially harvested in the estuary. The Fuel Element Debris (FED) amounts to 200 tonnes, and the treatment process involves dissolving this metal debris in nitric acid and then seeking to recover its radioactive content.

The permit was contentious because the original permit, issued in 2014, was issued by the Environment Agency without conducting a proper assessment under the Habitats Regulations. The Blackwater estuary is a SACSpecial Areas of Conservation and a SPASpecial Protection Areas (SPAsSpecial Protection Areas (SPAs) are strictly protected sites classified in accordance with Article 4 of the EC Birds Directive, which came into force in April 1979. They are classified for rare and vulnerable birds (as listed on Annex I of the Directive), and for regularly occurring migratory species.) are strictly protected sites classified in accordance with Article 4 of the EC Birds Directive, which came into force in April 1979. They are classified for rare and vulnerable birds (as listed on Annex I of the Directive), and for regularly occurring migratory species.. The permit was thus subject to a renewed public consultation which this time also included the protected features of the MCZMarine Conservation ZoneMarine Conservation Zone (the native oyster).

Marinet submitted detailedcommentsin 2016 to the EA which recorded the fact that the applicant’s own EIA showed that the nitrate discharges would routinely exceed the Water Framework Directive (WFD) quality status for the estuary, would likely cause excessive heavy metals contamination (particularly Chromium) under the quality standards of the WFD, and would lead to increased levels of a broad range of radionuclides in the oysters and biota of the estuary and that the EIA had never assessed this prospect.

The decision to grant the permit in March 2017, notwithstanding these documented objections, regularised the historic discharges dating from 2014.

The decision on 21st June 2017 to abandon the FED process means that around 140 tonnes of the original 200 tonnes of fuel element debris will not now be reprocessed. Instead, it will be stored in solid form at an alternative waste disposal facility.

This reprieve for the Blackwater MCZMarine Conservation ZoneMarine Conservation Zone, and its SACSpecial Areas of Conservation/SPASpecial Protection Areas (SPAsSpecial Protection Areas (SPAs) are strictly protected sites classified in accordance with Article 4 of the EC Birds Directive, which came into force in April 1979. They are classified for rare and vulnerable birds (as listed on Annex I of the Directive), and for regularly occurring migratory species.) are strictly protected sites classified in accordance with Article 4 of the EC Birds Directive, which came into force in April 1979. They are classified for rare and vulnerable birds (as listed on Annex I of the Directive), and for regularly occurring migratory species., marks a memorable change of heart. Although the author of this revised decision remains unknown, their good sense is to be greatly applauded — and Marinet expresses its own appreciation to the author for this decision.

Let us now hope that the communities of the Blackwater estuary, the oyster fishermen and their shell fishery, and the wider ecological features of this important area can prosper; and, that the shadow of a proposed new-build nuclear plant for the estuary will similarly slip away.

]]>World’s first floating offshore windfarm about to be constructed off NE Scotlandhttp://www.marinet.org.uk/worlds-first-floating-offshore-windfarm-about-to-be-constructed-off-ne-scotland.html
Wed, 28 Jun 2017 15:10:22 +0000http://www.marinet.org.uk/?p=10051The Guardian reports, 27th June 2017: The world’s first floating windfarm has taken to the seas in a sign that a technology once confined to research and development drawing boards is finally ready to unlock expanses of ocean for generating renewable power.

After two turbines were floated this week, five now bob gently in the deep waters of a fjord on the western coast of Norway ready to be tugged across the North Sea to their final destination off north-east Scotland.

The £200m Hywind project is unusual not just because of the pioneering technology involved, which uses a 78-metre-tall underwater ballast and three mooring lines that will be attached to the seabed to keep the turbines upright. It is also notable because the developer is not a renewable energy firm but Norway’s Statoil, which is looking to diversify away from carbon-based fuels.

Irene Rummelhoff, head of the oil firm’s low-carbon division, said the technology opened up an enormous new resource of wind power. “It’s almost unlimited. Currently we are saying [floating windfarms will work in] water depths of between 100 and 700 metres, but I think we can go deeper than that. It opens up ocean that was unavailable,” she said.

Offshore windfarms are springing up across the North Sea for a reason — its waters are uniquely shallow enough to allow turbines to be mounted atop steel poles fixed to the seabed.

However, such fixed-bottom turbines can only be installed at water depths down to 40 metres, making them little use for the steeply shelved coastlines of the US west coast or Japan.

As well as opening up new frontiers such as the Atlantic and the Mediterranean, floating windfarms could be placed farther out to sea to avoid the sort of aesthetic objections that scuppered a £3.5b windfarm off the Dorset coast.

While Hywind is a minnow among modern offshore wind projects — it will power just 20,000 homes compared with the 800,000 by one being built off the Yorkshire coast — proponents say floating turbines could eclipse fixed-bottom ones in the long run.

Rummelhoff said floating windfarms will come of age in the areas where conventional ones have been established, as countries such as the UK run out of suitable sites in shallower waters. But it is also talking with state governments in Hawaii and California about projects, and eyeing Japan and the new, pro-renewables government in Seoul.

Like many new technologies, the biggest challenge will be cost. Behind the turbines at the deep water port of Stord in Norway sits a huge lifting vessel usually used in the oil and gas industry. It is the second biggest of its kind, very expensive to hire — and, for now, essential in the process of lifting the turbines off the quayside and floating them.

Experts have said a conventional offshore windfarm with the capacity of Hywind would be less than half the cost. A generous subsidy deal from the Scottish government made the project viable.

The court heard that during two separate investigations carried out by the MMO, Vessel Monitoring System data and logbook entries identified that the vessel had committed numerous offences between 2016 and 2017.

The first investigation showed that in 2016 the vessel had, on three occasions committed offences of fishing within a seasonal closure area and on one occasion fishing in a real time closure area.

The second investigation revealed that in 2017 a further eight offences of fishing within a seasonal closure area and another offence of failing to keep an accurate logbook were committed between January and March.

Sentencing the owner and master, District Judge Sarah-Jane Griffiths said “You have acknowledged that these were serious offences and it is surprising to me that after the offences in 2016 were brought to your attention in June you committed a further 8 offences. To me it is clear that by that time at least you knew you shouldn’t have been in those areas.”

Despite being registered in the UK and, therefore, being required to comply with a UK fishing licence, the vessel is owned by Kafish B.V., a Dutch company. They were fined £66,000, with an additional fine of £80,000 to cover the value of the fish illegally caught, £3,500 costs and a victim surcharge of £170.

The vessel master, a Dutch national named Peter Kuyt, was fined £8,536.33 with an additional fine of £15,000 to cover the value of the fish illegally caught, £741 costs and a victim surcharge of £170.

A spokesman for the MMO said: “The court in this case has sent a clear message that these were serious offences which were aggravated by the fact that the offences were repeated on numerous occasions. The size of the fines imposed by the court in this case shows both the scale of damage to the marine environment caused by offences of this nature and the profits made by the perpetrators of these crimes.

“Fisheries offences like these are committed at the expense of the legitimate, law-abiding members of the fishing industry who rely on the sustainability of fishing grounds for their livelihoods and future. The MMO will always take appropriate enforcement action including pursuing and bringing prosecutions to court to protect the long term viability of the marine environment for future generations.”

Marinet observes: Whilst it is reassuring that offenders are being brought to court and successfully prosecuted, two outstanding questions remain:

1. Why was the Dutch vessel not prosecuted in 2016, thus allowing it to commit further offences in 2017?

2. There is no record here from the MMO or the Court decision of the Dutch vessel having to surrender its licence to fish. Why not ?

If this were a road traffic offence, the offender likely would be in jail and with their licence suspended for an extended period. Why does this not happen on the marine highways?

]]>Worldwide coral “bleaching event” eases, until ocean temperatures trigger one againhttp://www.marinet.org.uk/worldwide-coral-bleaching-event-eases-until-ocean-temperatures-trigger-one-again.html
Mon, 26 Jun 2017 08:07:02 +0000http://www.marinet.org.uk/?p=10047The Guardian reports, 20th June 2017: The worst coral bleaching event in recorded history, which has hit every major coral region on Earth since 2014, appears to be coming to an end, with scientists now worrying how long reefs will have to recover before it happens again.

After analysing satellite and model data, and finding bleaching in the Indian ocean no longer appeared widespread, the US National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has announced the event is no longer occurring on a global scale, and appears to be coming to an end.

Over an unprecedented period of three years, unusually warm water spread around the world, bleaching and killing coral.

Coral bleaches when the water is too warm for too long. The coral polyps get stressed and spit out the colourful algae that live in inside them, leaving them white. Since the algae provides the coral with 90% of its energy, the coral starves and — unless the temperatures quickly return to normal — dies.

In Australia, the Great Barrier Reef suffered the worst bleaching event in recorded history in 2016 and then again in 2017. It was estimated about half of its coral was killed between the two events.

In the Indian Ocean, reefs were badly hit. One survey in the Maldives found all reefs there were affected, with between 60% to 90% of coral colonies bleached. Christmas Island had virtually all its coral bleached, and 85% of its coral died.

In some other reefs, virtually all the coral was killed, with 98% of the coral around Jarvis dying, for example. Japanese reefs were badly hit, as were reefs in every other coral region.

“We know it has been the longest-lasting event and it has been the most widespread,” said Mark Eakin, co-ordinator of NOAA’s coral reef watch program. “And it probably has been the most damaging. In some places it definitely has been.”

Eakin said the data on total reef damage had not yet been analysed, so he could not say for sure whether it had been the worst but he said he would bet it had been.

The event started in 2014 when waters in the Pacific Ocean started to warm, in a pattern that resembled El Niño. The El Niño never fully kicked in, but the warming caused widespread bleaching. In 2015 an El Niño did occur, which spread the bleaching even further, and the effects continued all the way until now.

Although the El Niño cycle tipped water temperatures over the edge, and triggered the bleaching, Eakin said there was no doubt the underlying cause of the bleaching was climate change. There have been two recorded global bleaching events previously, both of which occurred when strong El Niño events warmed oceans around the world — in 1998 and then 2010.

Eakin said the underlying warming was priming the ocean for coral bleaching, potentially with every El Niño. “We didn’t even have an El Niño in 2014-15,”

Eakin said, adding that a near-El Niño was enough to cause widespread bleaching then. “At this point I’d say any El Niño, even moderate ones, will probably result in widespread, if not global, bleaching.”

That view is backed up by studies with modelling that suggests the conditions causing the most recent global bleaching event would be average conditions within two decades.

Coral reefs need between 10 and 15 years to regain their coral cover, Eakin said. But that assumes they are not hit with too many local problems — such as pollution — or another bleaching event.

“The big fear is just simply that these events keep coming,” Eakin said.

]]>Is Cod returning to Newfoundland, Canada?http://www.marinet.org.uk/is-cod-returning-to-newfoundland-canada.html
Sat, 24 Jun 2017 07:33:31 +0000http://www.marinet.org.uk/?p=10039The National Post reports, 23rd March 2017: There’s a huge biological change happening on the banks that extend off Newfoundland and Labrador’s north-eastern coast. The northern cod are coming back. And they’re eating the shrimp that had taken over their home range off the northern Grand Banks of the Labrador Coast.

The return of the once mighty northern cod stock may be a boon for the natural world and, eventually, for the humans who haul them from the sea, process them and eat them.

After all, their disappearance 25 years ago almost killed the east coast fishing industry and seriously maimed the Atlantic provinces. Now their return brings economic and social upheaval.

A few million tonnes of cod, famished from their spring spawning on the offshore banks, were chasing billions of capelin into shore. “When they get in amongst the capelin, they just gorge themselves,” said George Rose, a former Fisheries and Oceans Canada scientist who literally wrote the book on how man destroyed one of the earth’s greatest wild protein sources.

“Cod: The Ecological History of the North Atlantic Fisheries” reads like a Shakespearian tragedy, with man’s pride in his own power and knowledge leading him to destroy one of nature’s greatest gifts.

“Oh yes, they’re coming back on the north-east coast,” said Rose, “Farther south, they’re still in rough shape, but the northern cod was the big one.”

The southern Grand Banks, the Gulf of Maine, Scotian Shelf and Gulf of St. Lawrence are all home to their own cod stocks that have not shown significant signs of recovery since the overfishing of the late 20th century for reasons that are not fully understood.

But the biggest of all the stocks by a wide margin was the northern cod. For the last decade the northern cod stock has been increasing at a rate of about 30 per cent per year. Fisheries and Oceans Canada’s 2016 stock assessment estimated its total biomassThe amount of living matter. This is therefore a different measure to numbers of organisms. So, for example, there is much more biomass in 1 elephant than there is in 1000 fleas and there may be more biomass in 100 large cod than you would find in 150 small (because of over fishing) cod. at around 300,000 tonnes.

That’s well short of the million tonnes Fisheries and Oceans has pegged as the size of a healthy resource. But it’s ten times as many fish as were there were on 2nd July, 1992, when former fisheries minister John Crosbie announced the cod moratorium that resulted in the biggest lay-off in Canadian history — an estimated 45,000 jobs.

“If northern cod kept growing at the rate that it has been, we could see a healthy fishery in a few years,” said Rose. “But there’s no guarantees that it will.”

Nobody knows how big the northern cod stock once was. But fishing records tell us that back in 1968, when Rufus Genge made his first trip to Belle Isle, 800,000 tonnes of northern cod were caught. Another 400,000 tonnes were taken from the stocks on the southern Grand Banks. Eighty per cent of that catch was by foreign draggers from Spain, Portugal, the Soviet Union, Japan and France.

The cod stocks are the gift of plate tectonics.

When North America tore itself from Europe and Africa 200 million years ago, and started floating east, it took some of the Old World with it like a memento for its long voyage.That keepsake is a shallow underwater plateau that stretches for up to 500 kilometres off of Newfoundland and Labrador’s east coast.

“It’s monstrous and there’s no other place like it on the planet,” said Rose of the Grand Banks.

AARON BESWICK for National Post

Frigid arctic water is pumped south by the Labrador Current toward the Gulf Stream, which pulls up warm waters from the south. The churning of these two currents sends nutrients from the Atlantic’s dark floor up the precipitous underwater shoulders of the Grand Banks into the light column.

In a kind of underwater alchemy at 150 metres below sea level, trillions of microscopic plants called planktonPlankton is a generic term for a wide variety of the smallest yet most important organisms form that drift in our oceans. They can exist in larger forms of more than 20cm as the larval forms of jellyfish, squid, starfish, sea urchins, etc. and can be algae, bacterial or even viral down to as small as 0.2µm. They are nutrient and light dependent, and form the essential foodchain baseline for larger dependent aquatic lifeforms. Fish species rely on the density and distribution of zooplanktonZooplankton form the group of tiny animals such as minuscule jellyfish and rotifers present in the marine environment. They are a major source of food for those higher up the food chain, and their numbers relate directly as a good indicator to the nutrient enrichment of the sea of the area.
Note: phytoplankton are microscopic plants, and zooplankton are microscopic animals. to coincide with first-feeding larvae for good survival of their larvae, which can otherwise starve. Man-made impacts such as dredging, dams on rivers, waste dumping, etc can severely affect zooplanktonZooplankton form the group of tiny animals such as minuscule jellyfish and rotifers present in the marine environment. They are a major source of food for those higher up the food chain, and their numbers relate directly as a good indicator to the nutrient enrichment of the sea of the area.
Note: phytoplankton are microscopic plants, and zooplankton are microscopic animals. density and distribution, which can in turn strongly affect larval survival and thus breeding success and stock strength of fish species and the entire ecosystem. They also form the essential basis of CO2 take up in our seas ecosystem, hence Global Warming. harness the sun’s energy to convert the nutrients into biological matter. Tiny little animals called zooplanktonZooplankton form the group of tiny animals such as minuscule jellyfish and rotifers present in the marine environment. They are a major source of food for those higher up the food chain, and their numbers relate directly as a good indicator to the nutrient enrichment of the sea of the area.
Note: phytoplankton are microscopic plants, and zooplankton are microscopic animals. feed upon the plants and bring life closer to a size that we can actually see.

There are two predominant directions that zooplanktonZooplankton form the group of tiny animals such as minuscule jellyfish and rotifers present in the marine environment. They are a major source of food for those higher up the food chain, and their numbers relate directly as a good indicator to the nutrient enrichment of the sea of the area.
Note: phytoplankton are microscopic plants, and zooplankton are microscopic animals. can take to make their way up the food chain on the Grand Banks: through crustaceans like northern shrimp or through the small baitfish capelin.
“You can’t have both,” said Boris Worm, a marine biologist at Halifax’s Dalhousie University, who has studied the inverse relationship of cod and shrimp.

That is to say you can’t have both a capelin-cod dominated food webThe totality of interacting food chains in an ecological community and a crustacean-dominated food webThe totality of interacting food chains in an ecological community on the shelf that extends off Newfoundland and Labrador. Cod do eat shrimp. But after going a month without food during the spring spawning season what they really need is the capelin that refills their livers with the fatty lipids to survive the winter to come.

We appear to be headed back to the traditional order of a capelin-cod dominated food chain. Indeed, the MP’s fisheries committee is also urging closer monitoring of capelin stocks, as well as limits on seal populations, which prey on both cod and capelin.

As the water cooled during the late 1980s, capelin stocks plummeted for reasons that still aren’t understood. They were not heavily fished.

Cod, losing its traditional food source, began gathering in tighter schools of fish and migrating farther south toward the warmer nose and tail of the Grand Banks where they could find more food.

Meanwhile, sounders allowed trawlers to peer into the depths and scoop up the tightly packed fish in bag-shaped nets dragged hundreds of metres below the water’s surface.

Marinet observes: Is this encouraging news? One would dare to hope so, but the reality is that the original stocks disappeared due to over-fishing aided by the failure of governments, both Canadian and of other nations, to take any action to prevent it.

Have we now arrived at a point where over-fishing would not be repeated?

There is little evidence to assert with any conviction that this might be so. In the EU over-fishing was meant to cease from 2015 onwards. However it still persists under government direction in the case of around 60% of NE Atlantic stocks and of 90% of Mediterranean stocks.

That is not exactly convincing evidence that either fishermen or governments have changed.

What is also true is that it is only the northern Newfoundland stock that has shown some sign of recovery, with southern stocks still endangered and at very low levels.

It is far too early to say the Newfoundland stocks have recovered. All remains in the balance.